Family Court finds divorce applicant behind fake acknowledgement of service

The Family Court at Brighton has ruled that a husband who claimed English domicile in several divorce applications was the driving force behind a false acknowledgement of service in his wife's name.

Background

In McGregor v Smith [2026] EWFC 128 (B), HHJ Farquhar gave judgment in the Family Court at Brighton on 3 June 2026, after a hearing on 23 and 24 March 2026. The judgment was handed down following written submissions and a separate judgment on costs and anonymisation.

Mr McGregor filed a divorce application on 17 February 2025. It stated that the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction because he was domiciled here. He had filed three earlier divorce applications, each also stating that he was domiciled in this jurisdiction.

He was born in England in 1970 and lived and worked here until 2013, when he moved to Dubai. He bought two investment properties in the UK in 2016 and 2017. The parties married in Australia in October 2015, lived in Dubai, and separated in April 2020. Ms Smith then returned to Australia.

An acknowledgement of service was submitted electronically in Ms Smith's name on 28 February 2025. Both parties accepted she did not provide it. At a hearing on 15 January 2026 the judge set it aside. At that hearing Mr McGregor said he was in fact domiciled in Bali, Indonesia, so the court had no jurisdiction. Ms Smith argued he changed position to avoid scrutiny of her allegation that he had tried to obtain a divorce by submitting an acknowledgement of service he knew was not genuine.

The questions

The judge set down two issues: how the purported acknowledgement of service came about, and whether the court had jurisdiction based on Mr McGregor's domicile.

The decision and reasoning

On the acknowledgement, the judge was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr McGregor was fully involved in creating the false email address used, and was aware throughout of what was happening. The judge found he was "the driving force behind the fake Acknowledgement of Service even if it was not him that actually sent it." He had accepted on several occasions that he had been dishonest. The judge gave a Lucas direction: a person who lies on one matter has not necessarily lied on every matter, so each piece of evidence on domicile had to be considered on its own merits.

On jurisdiction, section 5(2)(g) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 gives the court jurisdiction if either party is domiciled in England and Wales on the date of the application. Ms Smith accepted she was domiciled in Australia, so jurisdiction depended on Mr McGregor's domicile when the application was filed.

The judgment set out the test from Raman v Kist-Ramana [2025] EWCA Civ 102. A domicile of choice requires a combination of residence and intention of permanent or indefinite residence. It cited Divall v Divall [2014] EWHC 95, which describes a domicile of origin as hard to displace, and Agulian v Cyganik [2006] EWCA Civ 129, which requires clear, cogent and compelling evidence of an intention to settle permanently or indefinitely elsewhere. Mr McGregor said he considers that he lives in Bali but works in Dubai. He has bought properties and set up companies in Bali, but accepted he spent roughly 25 days a year there over the last four years.

Sources

• McGregor v Smith (Domicile/Misuse of Divorce Portal), [2026] EWFC 128 (B), Family Court at Brighton, 3 June 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/128